Agenda item

(Mr B J Sweetland, Local Member, was in attendance for this item and took part in the debate) 

(1)     On 21 May 2013, the Department for Transport (DfT) launched a consultation on the need for, and options for, a third Lower Thames Crossing. The consultation closed on 16 July 2013.  In arriving at the decision that a new crossing option was required and the three corridor options, the DfT had drawn on a considerable number of studies that had been undertaken over the last few years as well as seeking advice from a Stakeholder Advisory Panel.  KCC had been represented at director level on the Stakeholder Advisory Panel and had fully engaged throughout the early scheme feasibility stage with the prime objective of seeking delivery of the project at the earliest opportunity.  The report summarised the considerable evidence issued as part of the consultation.  The County Council’s Cabinet would be discussing a response to the DfT’s consultation at their meeting on 15 July 2013. 

(2)   The existing Dartford-Thurrock crossing was the only river crossing to the east of London.  It had provided a vital north-south connection since the west tunnel opened in 1963 and was a key link for journeys to and from Europe, within London and the south east and to/from the rest of the UK.  Government was clear that the existing Dartford – Thurrock Crossing was over capacity.   It was also clear that even after the introduction of free-flow tolling in October 2014, traffic volumes and delays would continue to increase both at the crossing and its approaches, and that the cost to the UK economy in terms of reduced productivity and constrained growth would be exacerbated.  Section 2 of the annex to the report set out the evidence supporting the position.

(3)  The DfT had launched a consultation on three potential corridor options with one of the options having a suggested variation.  The three options were set out in Appendix A to the report.  Each option would provide two lanes for traffic in each direction and could be one of three structure types: bridge, immersed tunnel or bored tunnel.  An immersed tunnel involved excavating a trench on the riverbed and dropping a tube structure into it.  A bored tunnel was literally a circular tunnel bored at depth below the riverbed without removing the ground above it.

(4)     An assessment included in the report presented an overview of the benefits and impacts likely to arise from each of the corridor options.     Overall, each option was deemed feasible to build and connect into the existing road network; was likely to offer benefits in excess of the costs; and was likely to deliver the following, albeit to varying extents:

·                Increase traffic levels crossing the lower Thames;

·                Reduce congestion and improve journey times on the existing crossing;

·                Provide large benefits to business users;

·                Increase the population experiencing noise; and,

·                Lead to some relocation of jobs eastwards from London.

The relative merits and disbenefits of each corridor option was summarised in Table 3 of the report. 

(5)      During debate officers responded to comments and questions from Members relating to the following issues:-

·                the removal of tolls which should be supported

·                the effects of air pollution on children’s health

·                in the response to Government the views of Essex County Council should be supported

·                the impact on freight transport

·                more detail of route

(6)      Members were informed that a briefing for all Members had been arranged for Monday, 24 June between 3.45pm – 5.00pm in the Seminar Lecture Theatre, Sessions House.

(7)    RESOLVED that the content of the report and appendices which summarised the current Department for Transport consultation on corridor options for a new Lower Thames Crossing, be received and noted.